An Post workers have a Cushy Deal

ballooba · 04-11-2005 11:48AM

Shabadu wrote:

Also, the concept of a National Average wage is spurious when you consider how many lackeys on minimum wage are factored in. People working in the Postal service tend to be lifers, and career people get paid more.

That is bullshít. The concept of lifers doesn't exist anywhere else any more because people have to constantly compete and progress in their jobs to progress. Often the only way to do this is to move around. In An Post people don't have to move around because they will progress anyway just because they have been there longer.

Also regardless of the average industrial wage, postal workers are way better paid than most other categories of worker there:

http://www.cso.ie/statistics/earnings_dist_business.htm

Tazz T · 04-11-2005 11:55AM

DonkeyStyle \o/ wrote:

Wow, being a postman sounds cool, where do I sign up? (seriously)

I spent a summer working as a postman in the UK - it was easily the most enjoyable job while being a student.

For those who aren't career minded, it is an relatively easy job that's well paid.

Matches · 04-11-2005 11:59AM

I was listening to the radio on the way to work this morning and they said that one postie had earnt nealy €86,000 this year including his OT. I am in the wrong job.....

Slutmonkey57b · 04-11-2005 12:30PM

While I'm no fan of unions it's interesting to see just how stupid a lot of young career-minded people are in being hostile to the whole idea of unions. commenting "see how far that attitude gets you in the private sector" is moronic. What you're actually saying is "Hey! My employer abuses the **** out of me, breaks the labour laws, destroys my quality of life and I LOVE IT!" Anyone who regards having to work 10-12 hours a day, with unpaid overtime as a good thing is an absolute moron. There are laws in place to protect workers for a reason, and the reason is that a lot of employers would sell your organs on ebay if they thought they could get away with it. Unions don't help matters with some of the battles they choose to fight, but trust me, when you're older and you're relying on your job to pay for kids and houses you wont be patting yourself on the back boasting about how you worked 70 hours this week without getting paid for it, unlike those stupid trolls in the public sector.

Slutmonkey57b · 04-11-2005 12:42PM

ballooba wrote:

If I knew your dad I'd welcome hime to the real world. I'm quite junior in my work so I am not yet expected to work those kind of hours but most of the people around me do.

There's a big difference between working long hours because you choose to, and working long hours because you're forced to under threat of being sacked. And there's a big difference between being sacked as a junior office worker at the age of 19 when you haven't a care in the world and being sacked as a father of kids after 26 years in the same job.

The work of two men by An Post standards or by the standards of the workload most people have?

I've never worked in the post office in my life. However, even I can see one obvious point you've overlooked: Ever walked miles toting a large heavy shoulder bag around for hours every day? Being a student doesn't count by the way, a)your bag isn't heavy; b) you get to put it down whenever you want.

I wish they would do this more. It would be a great way of getting rid of some An Post people. It is notoriously difficult to sack civil servants. Also another thing you mentioned if An Post workers feel they're getting such a bad deal then why can't they do like the rest of us and change jobs. DHL, TNT, Interlink, GLS. Oh wait, then they would have to do real work.

Why would you support an employer using scare tactics on its workforce? You're a worker aren't you? Why would you want your employer to threaten you, overwork you, and illegally underpay you? And what makes you think that the courior companies would be better places to work? Do they pay well? Do they look after their employees? Or do you think that postal workers should be forced to change jobs regardless of whether it's necessary or not? Do you have any clue what you're talking about?

DonkeyStyle \o/ · 04-11-2005 12:46PM

Well said Slutmonkey.
You spend such a large chunk of your life working, it seems ironic to spend so much time in a job that abuses you in order to increase your quality of life outside of work. :eek:
tbh I've got cold feet about sitting cooked up in a server room 12 hours a day for the next 40 years. :eek:

Slutmonkey57b · 04-11-2005 12:49PM

ballooba wrote:

That is bullshít. The concept of lifers doesn't exist anywhere else any more because people have to constantly compete and progress in their jobs to progress. Often the only way to do this is to move around. In An Post people don't have to move around because they will progress anyway just because they have been there longer.

So people who have the freedom to drop their life at the whim of their employer and move around should be rewarded, and people who have difficulty dropping everything and upping sticks should be penalised? Or sacked? Or prevented from getting promoted?
What exactly is the _necessity_ behind An Post demanding that its employees relocate to the midlands? Do you know?
Why shouldn't long term employees be rewarded for long term service? Don't you know that 90% of the use an employer gets from their staff is their on-the-job knowledge?

Also, in your own job, please tell me what exactly prevents your employer from relocating your job to Asia where wages are 10 times lower, people are better educated, and will happily give up all their rights for nothing? And why should they continue to employ you at all? Are you really that leet that they can't exist without you?

Shabadu · 04-11-2005 12:52PM

ballooba wrote:

That is bullshít. The concept of lifers doesn't exist anywhere else any more because people have to constantly compete and progress in their jobs to progress. Often the only way to do this is to move around. In An Post people don't have to move around because they will progress anyway just because they have been there longer.

Also regardless of the average industrial wage, postal workers are way better paid than most other categories of worker there:

http://www.cso.ie/statistics/earnings_dist_business.htm

Wow- the way you just reiterated your first post without adding anything new is teh KEWL!!1 I'll do the same thing now, then the circle will be complete:

Why do they get paid more? Do you know anyone in the Postal Service? Do you pay *any* attention to your sig?

Or are you just another person pretending to know what you're talking about?

P.S.: Slutmonkey for the win.

ballooba · 04-11-2005 01:00PM

Slutmonkey57b wrote:

What exactly is the _necessity_ behind An Post demanding that its employees relocate to the midlands? Do you know?

They most likely didn't want them to move and were merely trying to get rid of them.

Slutmonkey57b wrote:

Why shouldn't long term employees be rewarded for long term service? Don't you know that 90% of the use an employer gets from their staff is their on-the-job knowledge?

You shouldn't be rewarded based on the time you have been on the job. You should be promoted and paid based on the wealth that you produce and how hard you work.

Slutmonkey57b wrote:

Also, in your own job, please tell me what exactly prevents your employer from relocating your job to Asia where wages are 10 times lower, people are better educated, and will happily give up all their rights for nothing? And why should they continue to employ you at all? Are you really that leet that they can't exist without you?

Because my employers require a local presence and have just bought the company for exactly that purpose. I have spent a lot of time working to ensure that I am properly educated and can compete with Asian people. They could possibly exist without me but not without my team. I work hard to ensure that I am an important part of that team.

RuggieBear · 04-11-2005 01:03PM

skywalker wrote:

If strike action goes ahead will post offices still be open this afternoon? Also I know theres a post office on Baggot st but Im not sure where exactly, can anyone point me in the right direction?

Un upper baggot street inside a newsagent's called Murphy's/Murrays (i can never remember which), right at the back. Handy as it is also open at lunchtime.

Oh...thsnks vibe

ballooba · 04-11-2005 01:04PM

Shabadu wrote:

Wow- the way you just reiterated your first post without adding anything new is teh KEWL!!1 I'll do the same thing now, then the circle will be complete:

Why do they get paid more? Do you know anyone in the Postal Service? Do you pay *any* attention to your sig?

Or are you just another person pretending to know what you're talking about?

P.S.: Slutmonkey for the win.

Actually I was pointing out to that person that it is not just the average indutrial wage which the Postal Workers get better than. I don't know anyone in the postal service but I have worked in the Civil Service and I know exactly what it's like.

ballooba · 04-11-2005 01:11PM

Slutmonkey57b wrote:

I've never worked in the post office in my life. However, even I can see one obvious point you've overlooked: Ever walked miles toting a large heavy shoulder bag around for hours every day? Being a student doesn't count by the way, a)your bag isn't heavy; b) you get to put it down whenever you want.

They have bikes and cars available to them.

Slutmonkey57b wrote:

And what makes you think that the courior companies would be better places to work? Do they pay well? Do they look after their employees? Or do you think that postal workers should be forced to change jobs regardless of whether it's necessary or not? Do you have any clue what you're talking about?

An Post is essentially a courier company. Why shouldn't postal workers have to be competitive with respect to the private sector workers. Postal workers aren't being to forced to change jobs. They are just not getting the extraordinary pay rises they are asking for. If they feel they are getting a bad deal then they should have to find a better one or shut up. I for one will not be paying any increases in postal rates I will just use a courier company and get proper service. If postal workers think that the company is going to survive keeping them in the lifestyles that they are accustomed to then they need a wakeup call. Hopefully the governement will give them one.

Slutmonkey57b · 04-11-2005 01:19PM

ballooba wrote:

They most likely didn't want them to move and were merely trying to get rid of them.

Again, why is that a good thing? Why is that something you would support? Why is it ok for an employer to use scare tactics on people with families who have done nothing wrong? It's not like the employees are asking for money that the Post office hasn't agreed to give them, is it? If there is someone "at fault" for high wages in the post office, it is the managers who agreed to the wage levels in the first place, isn't it? So why blame the workforce?

You shouldn't be rewarded based on the time you have been on the job. You should be promoted and paid based on the wealth that you produce and how hard you work.

Give me a quantifiable analysis of any job that allows me as a manager to predict the "wealth" that the majority of jobs generate and i'll give you a nobel prize for economics. Judging a job's worth by its wealth generation is only applicable to sales. Since a postman doesn't sell anything I'd love to hear exactly how you propose to measure their worth to the employer by wealth generation. I'd love to hear how you'd apply it to 90% of office workers too, most of whom work as part of teams with Dilbert-inspiring mission statements of baffling obscurity.

Because my employers require a local presence and have just bought the company for exactly that purpose. I have spent a lot of time working to ensure that I am properly educated and can compete with Asian people. They could possibly exist without me but not without my team. I work hard to ensure that I am an important part of that team.

You can't compete with Asian people on cost. You can't compete with eastern european people on cost. I have had (i'm not joking here) fully qualified electrical engineers who speak 3 languages applying for jobs as floor moppers. Irish people don't even come close to the educational standards of the eastern europeans and Asians.
And there's a big difference between your team being worth something and you being worth something. As for local presence, the company is the local presence they have bought, not you. They can staff that company with whoever they want and still have a local presence - just look at the amount of foreign nationals working in shops, hotels, bars, restaurants....

I'm not bashing you, or your job directly here. I'm trying to make the point to you that when worker A spends his time supporting Employer Z's efforts to destroy worker B's rights, he's only shooting himself in the foot in the long run. We in western europe have the highest wages, the best social benefits, and the best worker protection rights in the world. You, the workers, have these rights because people before you stood up and fought for them. Throwing them away because a modern employer is persuading you that they are "hurting" the company is just plain moronic.

Slutmonkey57b · 04-11-2005 01:26PM

ballooba wrote:

They have bikes and cars available to them.

And riding a bike laden with postbags is no effort at all, right?

An Post is essentially a courier company. Why shouldn't postal workers have to be competitive with respect to the private sector workers.

Better question - why should private sector workers be given worse, or illegal conditions, than public sector ones? And why should the logic of "drive everyone down to the base level" be one that workers should support?

Postal workers aren't being to forced to change jobs. They are just not getting the extraordinary pay rises they are asking for. If they feel they are getting a bad deal then they should have to find a better one or shut up.

Did you even read your _own_ previous posts? The post office is doing exactly that - telling workers they have to move or be sacked. And they're not asking for an extraordinary pay rise - they're asking for the pay rise the management agreed to give them to actually be paid.

skywalker · 04-11-2005 01:47PM

RuggieBear wrote:

Un upper baggot street inside a newsagent's called Murphy's/Murrays (i can never remember which), right at the back. Handy as it is also open at lunchtime.

Oh...thsnks vibe

Thanks Ruggie. Thats near the bridge/canal isnt it?

Padraig Mor · 04-11-2005 01:50PM

Slutmonkey57b wrote:

And they're not asking for an extraordinary pay rise - they're asking for the pay rise the management agreed to give them to actually be paid.

AFAIK management agreed to pay them more on condition that they change work practices. In time honoured union style however, "de workers" are now refusing to do what they agreed but are still demanding more money (am I correct in saying 25% extra?!), i.e. get money now and then demand more money in future for changes they had already agreed to.

RuggieBear · 04-11-2005 01:58PM

skywalker wrote:

Thanks Ruggie. Thats near the bridge/canal isnt it?

yep..heading from town, it's over the bridge on the right

Slutmonkey57b · 04-11-2005 02:03PM

Without knowing what the changed work practices are I wouldn't comment on what "de workers" are refusing to do. And if the company is witholding a legally entitled wage increase from its workers on the basis that work practices must change, then who is at fault?

Basically,
a) workers are legally entitled to a wage increase as of 2 years ago
b) a further increase was negotiated if work practices chaged
c) The first increase is being witheld because the conditions of the second increase have not been met.

Who is at fault? Why is it "de workers" and not "de management" who are ****ing it up? And again, why should workers side with management to destroy another worker's quality of life?

If, as a manager, I found that employees had signed up to a changed job description and then refused to fill that description, I'd be quite happy to press it as a disciplinary matter. So why haven't the management done that if the situation is as simple as "de workers" not doing their jobs?

godtabh · 04-11-2005 02:34PM

Slutmonkey57b wrote:

While I'm no fan of unions it's interesting to see just how stupid a lot of young career-minded people are in being hostile to the whole idea of unions. commenting "see how far that attitude gets you in the private sector" is moronic. What you're actually saying is "Hey! My employer abuses the **** out of me, breaks the labour laws, destroys my quality of life and I LOVE IT!" Anyone who regards having to work 10-12 hours a day, with unpaid overtime as a good thing is an absolute moron. There are laws in place to protect workers for a reason, and the reason is that a lot of employers would sell your organs on ebay if they thought they could get away with it. Unions don't help matters with some of the battles they choose to fight, but trust me, when you're older and you're relying on your job to pay for kids and houses you wont be patting yourself on the back boasting about how you worked 70 hours this week without getting paid for it, unlike those stupid trolls in the public sector.

Since this seems to be aimed at me I'll try and defend my point.

Slutmonkey57b wrote:

While I'm no fan of unions it's interesting to see just how stupid a lot of young career-minded people are in being hostile to the whole idea of unions. commenting "see how far that attitude gets you in the private sector" is moronic.

I'm a engineer. Just say every day I desgin 5m long beams then the boss asks me to desgin a 10m one. From the union behind the DART potential strike was reprsenting me they'd ask for more money and I'd be shown the door.

Slutmonkey57b wrote:

What you're actually saying is "Hey! My employer abuses the **** out of me, breaks the labour laws, destroys my quality of life and I LOVE IT!"

How am I saying this? Just because I'm not in a union doesnt mean I let my employer walk all over me.

Slutmonkey57b wrote:

Anyone who regards having to work 10-12 hours a day, with unpaid overtime as a good thing is an absolute moron.

When I worked 10-12 hour days working with a Plumber I got over time. Now when I do it I dont. I get me salary and am happy with that. Since I dont get over time I get looked after with my Christmas bonus. The harder I work the larger it is.

It seems to be the norm these days for profesional jobs such as engineers accountants to no over time where as skilled labour such as electricans, plumbers etc get paid over time.

I dont have to do the over time. Its not forced but I do it anyway.

Slutmonkey57b wrote:

you worked 70 hours this week without getting paid for it, unlike those stupid trolls in the public sector.

Any one who works 70 hours per week are more than likely to be in higher postions in their companies and as a result their salaries will reflect that and the fact they may have to work long hours.

I work alot with public sector people and know that some do a fantatic job while others are just there to get a weekly paycheck and 40 years down the line a pension. T

The simple fact is that the public sector isnt run like it is a going concern. Can you say An Post, Irish Rail, the county councils to name but a few give us value for money?

godtabh · 04-11-2005 02:38PM

Slutmonkey57b wrote:

If, as a manager, I found that employees had signed up to a changed job description and then refused to fill that description, I'd be quite happy to press it as a disciplinary matter. So why haven't the management done that if the situation is as simple as "de workers" not doing their jobs?

If you disciplined one person there would be war and people would strike.
(Its happened before I think it was last Xmas in An Post)
You disciplin every one who works for you?

neacy69 · 04-11-2005 02:44PM

tbh i think it wouldnt be christmas without the An Post strike......:D

ballooba · 04-11-2005 02:55PM

Slutmonkey57b wrote:

Again, why is that a good thing? Why is that something you would support? Why is it ok for an employer to use scare tactics on people with families who have done nothing wrong?

IMO this would be a good way of getting rid of troublesome workers in a system where it is otherwise difficult o sack troublesome workers. The unions have created this situation so they can't go whinging about it now.

It's not like the employees are asking for money that the Post office hasn't agreed to give them, is it? If there is someone "at fault" for high wages in the post office, it is the managers who agreed to the wage levels in the first place, isn't it? So why blame the workforce?

Slutmonkey57b wrote:

Give me a quantifiable analysis of any job that allows me as a manager to predict the "wealth" that the majority of jobs generate and i'll give you a nobel prize for economics. Judging a job's worth by its wealth generation is only applicable to sales.

The measure of wealth generation does not have to be quantitative, it could be qualitative as it is in most jobs. Regardless Quantitative measure would be how much work they are getting through and how much mistakes they are making in doing that work. Qualitative mesaures would also be their ability to find efficient and effective solutions to problems.

Slutmonkey57b wrote:

And there's a big difference between your team being worth something and you being worth something.

Not really if you're an important part of the team seeing as the team is made up of it's members.

Slutmonkey57b wrote:

We in Western Europe have the highest wages, the best social benefits, and the best worker protection rights in the world.

We have the highest wages because private sector workers worked hard to drive the economy. Postal workers are frustrating the momentum of that economy by being greedy while providing a shoddy service. Anyone with any kind of ambition who has worked in the Public sector will tell you that they it is very frustrating to see people around you getting huge amounts of money for doing no work. They will also probably agree that the unions have too much power and should be taken down a peg or two.

godtabh · 04-11-2005 03:07PM

ballooba wrote:

We have the highest wages because private sector workers worked hard to drive the economy.

I totally agree with this.

In the past when times were bad the private sector pay was crap and job security was low. People then joined the public sector to get a steady wage.

The private sector then started to pick up and there workers were rewarded. Public sector saw this and were jealous and hence industrial action increased over the last decade. No they are in a situation where their pay isnt sustainable without a change in work practices. But people got them selfs into a cosy number and are not willing to change their work practices but do expect an increase in wages.

There has to be give on both sides.

Tha Gopher · 04-11-2005 03:12PM

I forgot to mention, the times my uncle was caught drinking, he was suspended for a few months each time on FULL PAY!!! Therefore, for drinking on the job, his reward was to sit on his arse at home for a few months each time, and get paid the full wage for it

BEST JOB EVER

ballooba · 04-11-2005 03:17PM

I spoke to the head of a medium sized sales company yesterday who said that they don't use An Post anymore for product because the stuff is never delivered on time if at all.

N_Raid · 04-11-2005 04:04PM

k well i don't know the ins and outs of everything cos I'm not a postman myself but from what i understand: The management were negotiating the pay raises with the workers and when they were they split up the DMC (dublin mails centre), the delivery offices and the postmen. They then said that they would negotiate with each group seperately. The DMC and the DOs raises were sorted out but when it came to the postmen they point blank refused. This is pretty much the main reason for the strike. The fact that they were promised a raise but then when it came to talks they were ignored.

As for the reason for mail taking so long. One of the reasons is because in the past while a new system has been introduced. If a load of letters come in to the DMC and they are swamped, the excess is sent to Portlaoise. In the sorting office in portlaoise they employ a few (stress a few) women part time. If there are too many letters for them the excess from that is sent down to cork. So if you're expecting a letter at a busy period don't hold your breath.

As for the postman job being cushy there are a few perks but there are downsides to. Like when you start off you don't have a walk of your own so you have to cover others peoples walks when needed. So you spend a year covering for holidays and sick leave etc. learning walks (which can be hard sometimes cos of the way some areas are) for two weeks at a time, then changing cos the person comes back and having to learn a totally new walk from scratch. I know of one bloke who started a new walk at six in the morning and wasn't finished until eight that evening with no break.

Slutmonkey57b · 04-11-2005 05:20PM

Tha Gopher wrote:

I forgot to mention, the times my uncle was caught drinking, he was suspended for a few months each time on FULL PAY!!! Therefore, for drinking on the job, his reward was to sit on his arse at home for a few months each time, and get paid the full wage for it

BEST JOB EVER

Again, this is down to incompetant management, there is no reason why a union would be able to prevent such an incompetant employee from being sacked.

godtabh · 04-11-2005 05:28PM

Slutmonkey57b wrote:

Again, this is down to incompetant management, there is no reason why a union would be able to prevent such an incompetant employee from being sacked.

I worked in Tesco in Lucan years ago. Some one I knew who worked there got caught shop lifting. Red handed and on camera. The union kicked up a fuss saying the shouldnt sack him cause this was his first offence. It was Tesco policy to persue shoplifitng but the jammy git got let off.

Thats just not on

One of the reasons why I dont like unions.

ballooba · 04-11-2005 05:30PM

Slutmonkey57b wrote:

there is no reason why a union would be able to prevent such an incompetant employee from being sacked.

You would hope that would be the case wouldn't you.

Slutmonkey57b · 04-11-2005 05:38PM

ballooba wrote:

IMO this would be a good way of getting rid of troublesome workers in a system where it is otherwise difficult o sack troublesome workers. The unions have created this situation so they can't go whinging about it now.

Again, seeing as I'm not getting an answer here, why is it the employees who are at fault for the failings of the postal system? If there are incompetant employees who the management has failed to take action against, why is it not the fault of the management?

According to your logic the unions created the entire public sector workforce from scratch and run it according to their own whims without any interference from management or the government.

According to logic in the private sector, if a company is inefficient and wasting money, then the management of the company is considered incompetant. Yet according to your logic the workforce are also the management of the company.

The measure of wealth generation does not have to be quantitative, it could be qualitative as it is in most jobs. Regardless Quantitative measure would be how much work they are getting through and how much mistakes they are making in doing that work. Qualitative mesaures would also be their ability to find efficient and effective solutions to problems.

It's actually the exact opposite point to the one you originally raised, but i'll pretend that you are actually following a logical train of thought here. If your metrics of qualitative analysis is to be taken into account, then you have to provide not only for the quantity of work achieved, and the timeframe given, but also against a neutral benchmark process of average efficiency. Your metrics above are also non-applicable to manual labour situations in which individual problem solving skills are not a factor.

Not really if you're an important part of the team seeing as the team is made up of it's members.

And who decides that? Based on what criteria? Does an unwillingness to relocate your family count against your importance to the team? How about union membership? And if your "value" to the company is determined by the value of your team, then in effect your own contribution is only as important as your least effective member. How is that a fair analysis?

We have the highest wages because private sector workers worked hard to drive the economy.

Absolutely false. The powerhouse economy of Europe for the past 40 years has been Germany - a state of massive public sector employment and almost universal union membership. Yet workers there are considered more efficient (according to neutral benchmarking) than any others in Europe.

Postal workers are frustrating the momentum of that economy by being greedy while providing a shoddy service. Anyone with any kind of ambition who has worked in the Public sector will tell you that they it is very frustrating to see people around you getting huge amounts of money for doing no work. They will also probably agree that the unions have too much power and should be taken down a peg or two.

1: Why is it immoral for workers to be greedy and not immoral for companies? Are you saying you don't ever want to be paid any more than you are now?
2: How is it that workers pay is "frustrating" the momentum of the economy, and not, for example, shoddy infrastructure and poor schooling?
3: If you want to see people getting paid huge amounts of money for no work, then I suggest you look further up the management trail for a glimpse of what real greed looks like.
4: If the power of the unions is destroyed, what exactly is going to stop employers from screwing their employees for all they're worth?

Finally, a quick question:
Why do we automatically assume that the public sector is inefficient while the private sector is not? I take it you've been following the wonders of PFI schemes in Britain to see just how efficient, charitable, incorruptible this process of privatisation is.
One word for you my friend: Railtrack.

An Post workers have a Cushy Deal

Comments